[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383
Jos de Kloe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josdek...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Jos de Kloe ---
rpmlint on the srpm reports these errors/warnings on some
textual issues, please fix them:
PythonMagick.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C PythonMagick
PythonMagick.src: E: description-line-too-long C PythonMagick is an
object-oriented interface to ImageMagick which makes it possible
PythonMagick.src: E: description-line-too-long C to access the powerful image
manipulation features of ImageMagick from Python applications.
PythonMagick.src: E: description-line-too-long C Install this library if you
want to create, edit, compose, transform or convert images
rpmlint on the generated rpm file gives these additionals warnings:
PythonMagick.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PythonMagick/_PythonMagick.so
_PythonMagick.so()(64bit)
PythonMagick.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PythonMagick/_PythonMagick.a
Avoiding a private shared object to be "provided" by an rpm can be done by
adding a filter like this:
%{?filter_setup:
%filter_provides_in %{python_sitearch}.*\.so$
%filter_setup
}
see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
a library file is not needed to run the python module.
Therefore _PythonMagick.a should be packed into a separate devel package
see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
"""
When in doubt as to whether a file belongs in the base package or in -devel,
packagers should consider whether the file is necessary to be present for a
user to use or execute the functionality in the base package properly, or if it
is only necessary for development. If it is only necessary for development, it
must go into a -devel package.
"""
Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
Therefore please remove: _PythonMagick.la
see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
list of "MUST" items.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pin...@pingoured.fr --- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- Are you still interested in getting this package into the repo (and thus becoming packager) ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 --- Comment #5 from philip.worr...@googlemail.com --- Yes Im still interested, just reading the docs again before I post an updated spec file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 --- Comment #6 from philip.worr...@googlemail.com --- I have taken into account the previous comments and corrected the SPEC file. Please find attached src.rpm and spec file. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32828830/Fedora/PythonMagick-0.9.7-2.fc16.src.rpm http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32828830/Fedora/PythonMagick.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383
--- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe ---
Thanks for your updated version.
Here is my (informal) review:
On my Fedora17 system "rpmbuild -ba' creates 4 rpms now:
PythonMagick-0.9.7-2.fc17.src.rpm
PythonMagick-0.9.7-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
PythonMagick-devel-0.9.7-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
PythonMagick-debuginfo-0.9.7-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
rplint results:
rpmlint PythonMagick-0.9.7-2.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint PythonMagick-0.9.7-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint PythonMagick-devel-0.9.7-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
PythonMagick-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint PythonMagick-debuginfo-0.9.7-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
The warning on the devel package is acceptable according to
the "no-documentation" section in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues
MUST items as mentioned in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
[+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
[+] MUST: In th
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 --- Comment #8 from Jos de Kloe --- As mentioned earlier, my review is an informal one, meaning that I do not have the rights to sponsor you. You still need to find a sponsor to allow the package to be accepted into Fedora. The best way is to introduce yourself on the devel mailinglist (assuming you did not yet do this). The procedure for this is detailed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=buapevH7iz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383
--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt ---
A few mistakes here, including one or two eyebrow-raisers. Let's start with the
reviews in comment 3 and comment 7:
> [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Please be careful here. Basically, this MUST item is the hardest one to
acknowledge with a brief '[+]', since that means you've checked _everything_
written on the following hierarchy of Wiki pages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Not only would you need to try to find a section in the guidelines for every
line of the spec file, you would also need to do that for the built rpms and
the build job output (as created by Mock or plain rpmbuild).
> [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
>
> [.] OK, not applicable
Cannot be true, because the reviewed package places a static lib in the -devel
packages:
| %files devel
| %{python_sitearch}/%{name}/_PythonMagick.a
Please revisit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
and comment on it, if you disagree or if there are questions.
> [+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
PythonMagick is a Python module to be used within Python software. Leaving
aside the Static Library guidelines for a moment, how does the _PythonMagick.a
library fit into all this?
$ rpmls -p PythonMagick-devel-0.9.7-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PythonMagick/_PythonMagick.a
> [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
> require the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21]
The reviewed package does
Requires:%{name} = %{version}-%{release}
so %_isa is not used. Minor issue only, but can lead to trouble in some
situations.
> %description devel
>
> %{name}-devel contains the library links you'll need to develop
> Python ImageMagick applications.
This description would deserve an explanation. Specifically: Which "links"? And
when are they needed?
> Group:Development/Libraries
"Development/Languages" is very common for Python modules.
> Requires: boost-python
> Requires: ImageMagick-c++ >= 6.4
> Requires: python >= 2.4
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
In short: Add comments to the spec file giving the rationale for each of those
explicit dependencies or drop them as appropriate. The section in the
guidelines may read as if it's specific to shared libs (here the
"ImageMagick-c++" explicit Requires), but basically it applies to all other
explicit Requires, too.
> Requires: python >= 2.4
Currently the package automatically depends on
python(abi) = 2.7
libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
and explicitly on
python >= 2.4
so which is right? Preferably, you drop the explicit dep on python >= 2.4,
since the automatic dependency is on Python 2.7.
> /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
> -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -DBOOST_PYTHON_DYNAMIC_LIB
> -avoid-version -module -L/usr/lib -Wl,-z,relro -o _PythonMagick.la -rpath
> /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PythonMagick
> pythonmagick_src/libpymagick.la helpers_src/libhelper.la -L/usr/lib
> -lboost_python -lMagick++ -lMagickCore-lpython2.7
>
This is a line from the x86_64 build job output. The '-L/usr/lib' indicates
that somewhere an incorrect libdir value, perhaps a hardcoded one, is used.
Tracking down where and telling upstream about it might be worthwhile.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qDbOWsGwWx&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||msu...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2015-07-21 09:27:28 --- Comment #10 from Miroslav Suchý --- Closing due long inactivity. Feel free to reopen if you want to continue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 --- Comment #1 from philip.worr...@googlemail.com 2012-03-27 12:26:57 EDT --- Hello, This is my first RPM package for Fedora. The rpm provides an interface for ImageMagick for Python programs. Its _not_ to be confused with python-magic which is used by the file command to see what type of file a given filename is. As far as I can tell, there is no RPM package of Python ImageMagick for fedora, although it has been packaged for debian [1] I have built the package on Fedora 15 x64-86 since this is the only system i have access to. The source is licence under the ImageMagick licence. I have named the package "PythonMagick" as this corresponds with the naming used by upstream [2]. I ran the rpmlint tool on the .SPEC file and found no warnings or errors. Regards, [1] http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=python-pythonmagick [2] http://www.imagemagick.org/script/api.php#python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer 2012-03-27 17:14:05 EDT --- Hi, if this is your first rpm for fedora, you should find a sponsor see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group . also, I would recommend reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python to make sure that your package follow the policy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(philip.worrall@go ||oglemail.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0s1Xb5K1At&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
